If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I'm on board with D-Unit, and completely disagree with BB and Shiver. Mainly because I spent like $205 on Dwight Howard. It really hurt me build the rest of my team and if it carries over I'm going to have a hard time once again. I think overpaying for one player put me in a disadvantage for the whole season, but at the end it would be rewarding. So there is a strategy to it. BB had a great season because he spread his money well, I put all my eggs in one basket and had a bad season but I'm better off in the long run.

It's not just that I'm getting my $205 player vs. BB who didn't have anyone even close, (but we start of with the same budget) it's me making a sacrifice for it.

Yeah, you paid the sacrifice already. I think it's only fair that you get to keep him for next year. But after that with the new 5 year vet rule in place, things will change. But at least you can restrategize without being penalized.

Comment

I'm on board with D-Unit, and completely disagree with BB and Shiver. Mainly because I spent like $205 on Dwight Howard. It really hurt me build the rest of my team and if it carries over I'm going to have a hard time once again. I think overpaying for one player put me in a disadvantage for the whole season, but at the end it would be rewarding. So there is a strategy to it. BB had a great season because he spread his money well, I put all my eggs in one basket and had a bad season but I'm better off in the long run.

It's not just that I'm getting my $205 player vs. BB who didn't have anyone even close, (but we start of with the same budget) it's me making a sacrifice for it.

But then you'll have a MAJOR advantage having one of the league's best players with no penalty.

The reason for paying to keep them is you either have to be willing to sacrifice that much again, or let him go. I'd be willing to bet you'd have a good chance of signing him back even cheaper..if not by a whole lot...

Meanwhile, I'd be at a MAJOR disadvantage because of my style this season. And before you say that I'm only arguing this because of how I built my team, know that I built my team under the assumption that it would cost you to keep players, so I avoided going to high on any one player for that reason.

For example, if you keep Dwight Howard and 2 other players at no cost to you, But then still get to spend the same amount I would in the next auction where I keep 3 significantly lesser players, it would be brutally unfair to me, as we'll have the same amount to spend but you'll have at least 1 significantly better player kept.

Like I said, I built my team under the assumption that, like regular keeper leagues, it would cost you something to keep a player. So I avoided spending big on any 1 player intentionally, and it has benefitted me well this season.

However, if teams are allowed to keep their superstars but still spend just as much as me who will be keeping players of significantly, it puts me at an extreme disadvantage.

Also, any team who got a budding superstar cheap will basically not be rewarded for that. If you for instance spent $20 on a guy who became an elite player this year, you can keep him for that $20 giving you a legitimate advantage. Whereas a person who took less of a gamble and invested big in an already established superstar will have a decision whether to release that guy and free up the money, or keep him and try to build a value team around him.

Under my suggestion, we would see teams giving up a lot of their stars and keeping players who have more value per dollar. Not in all cases, but it would be a decision that has to be made.

Especially for this coming season since anyone can keep any player, the 3-5 year rule wouldn't be in effect.

I'm really trying to get this for fairness sake.

Comment

I hear you BB. You have a point. Both sides have a point. While he does have the advantage next year, you have admit, he's been at a disadvantage this year. That's the trade off. That's likely what he was willing to sacrifice.

That's the problem when rules aren't clearly stated. People end up with different assumptions.

I fear we may ultimately have to start a new with crystal clear rules leaving no room for assumptions.

Comment

I hear you BB. You have a point. Both sides have a point. While he does have the advantage next year, you have admit, he's been at a disadvantage this year. That's the trade off. That's likely what he was willing to sacrifice.

That's the problem when rules aren't clearly stated. People end up with different assumptions.

I fear we may ultimately have to start a new with crystal clear rules leaving no room for assumptions.

But that was his decision to make, and he accepted that. If he had Dwight and then spent his remaining money on quality players, he'd be right in the thick of things too. There's more than one way to skin a cat, and you can be successful a number of ways. My value driven way could have easily backfired because I lack any elite superstars, but some of the cheaper players I got stepped up big and helped me out a lot.

I mean, however we end up doing it next year, count me in, I'll still do my damndest. Always do.

Comment

But that was his decision to make, and he accepted that. If he had Dwight and then spent his remaining money on quality players, he'd be right in the thick of things too. There's more than one way to skin a cat, and you can be successful a number of ways. My value driven way could have easily backfired because I lack any elite superstars, but some of the cheaper players I got stepped up big and helped me out a lot.

I mean, however we end up doing it next year, count me in, I'll still do my damndest. Always do.

Trust me. I'm screwed either way. I traded Derrick Rose $60 in a deal where I got Kevin Martin $80. No way I do that if I shared your assumptions. I also traded Demarcus Cousins an $8 buy for Antwan Jamison $43.

On the other hand, I got Lamarcus Aldridge for $15, so keeping him at that price is beneficial to me with your strategy.

I think the best solution might be to clear the air and start a new, but I'm wanting to hear from the other members of the league.

Comment

And if I shared your assumptions, I probably would have moved a lot more at the trade deadline than I did trying to acquire an actual star to keep around.

Like I've said, I got mine from how keeper leagues usually work in that in order to keep someone, you have to give up something (picks, money) for the following year. Or, you can scrap your whole team and start fresh will your full stock of picks/money.

It both encourages the movement of stars and also rewards players who find extremely valuable players really cheap. Like, in fantasy football, if you spent a 15th round pick on an obscure player, and then that guy becomes like a LeGarrette Blount, you can keep him and reap the benefits of finding him early since you'll only lose a 15th round pick the following draft.

Same principle in an auction league...if you find a $2 sleeper, you can keep him and still have $298 to build around him the next year.

If it's done your way, with no penalty to keeping a player regardless of how much he cost, everyone will go all out for each superstar, and building a low cost team like I did basically becomes meaningless after the first season. There's a risk/reward to both methods and you can win with either if you do it right.

For example, if you pay top dollar for an established star, you get an established star as your reward but you run the risk of not having money to surround him with other players.

Meanwhile, if you build a value driven team like I did, you have the reward of more mid-level players, you but run the risk of not having a star to carry your team if more than a few of those players fail out.

Like I said, there's more than one way to skin a cat and there is no wrong way. It just needs to be fair that whichever way you take, you won't be at a disadvantage in the future.

Comment

I don't see why there needs to be any new rules. 3 keepers per year for 3 total seasons. I went into the draft thinking that and I made my trades at the deadline with that in mind. No money restrictions in the Auction and no restrictions on keeping a player because of the amount of years they've played in the league.

I don't think giving bonus money to the 1st and 2nd Place teams will be necessary either. If anything, take money from the top teams and give more money to the lower place teams to help keep it kinda sorta maybe relatively balanced.

Comment

I don't see why there needs to be any new rules. 3 keepers per year for 3 total seasons. I went into the draft thinking that and I made my trades at the deadline with that in mind. No money restrictions in the Auction and no restrictions on keeping a player because of the amount of years they've played in the league.

I don't think giving bonus money to the 1st and 2nd Place teams will be necessary either. If anything, I'd give more money to the lower place teams to help keep it kinda sorta maybe relatively balanced.

But this is grossly unfair to people who tried to build balanced teams. If I would have known that, then I would have tried to get superstars. My method would have been meaningless after the first season as I'd be a HUGE disadvantage.

There needs to be some kind of risk beyond one season for keeping a guy that you spend a majority of you money on.

Comment

I'm pretty sure DUnit had already said that we'd have the same amount available for the next draft too. I'm not too sure, but that's the impression that I had.

I never recall hearing that though. And also, if you look at where it says "keepers" on your team page, why would they list the Auction value next to them if it didn't mean something? I assumed it to mean that if you kept that player, you'll have that much less to work with out of your total in the next draft.

That way, it puts you in a tough spot if you want to keep a superstar, but rewards people who found steals.

Like, I only spent $2 on DJ Augustin. Not a great PG by any stretch, but as a starter, he'd definitely go for more than $2 in the next draft...maybe he'd go for $20. But I'd get to keep him for $2, thus rewarding me for finding great value.

Meanwhile, a team could keep their superstar for $200..or take the chance of losing him, but also the chance of getting him back cheaper. If Bos lets Dwight go, maybe other teams having already kept guys they've invested in won't be able to drive his price up, and Bos could get him back for $175. That's a major win. And if he loses him, then he gets that $200 to spend on other available players.

I'm sorry if I sound like some raving lunatic, but it makes sense to me and the other way seems to unfairly penalize teams that don't have an elite superstar,when in the majority of fantasy leagues, they get rewarded for having a good team without major money/draft pick investment.

Comment

Yeah I wouldn't be real upset. As I've been arguing for like 2 days now, most of team isn't worth keeping in comparison to a lot of the other teams, lol

Also considering that like, less than half the league is active, a new start might be for the best. I'd keep the in-season stuff mostly the same but I'd contract to 16 teams for sure. And whatever the keeper policy is going to be, make it known before the draft.

Comment

I don't see why there needs to be any new rules. 3 keepers per year for 3 total seasons. I went into the draft thinking that and I made my trades at the deadline with that in mind. No money restrictions in the Auction and no restrictions on keeping a player because of the amount of years they've played in the league.

I don't think giving bonus money to the 1st and 2nd Place teams will be necessary either. If anything, take money from the top teams and give more money to the lower place teams to help keep it kinda sorta maybe relatively balanced.

1st Place: -$30
2nd Place: -$20
3rd Place: -$10

18th Place: +$10
19th Place: +$20
20th Place: +$30

Well for one, with the 3 year keeper rule on anybody, the fact is that we'll see a repeat of what goes on in the War League, where owners just swap highly talented players. AD for MJD, Andre for Fitz, etc etc. They never get back into the draft pool.

I learned a lot from the way we did the Diamond League. The draft was super fun because the top talent was available to draft. Keepers had to have less than 5 years experience, so it was fun and valueable to keep your top prospects like Lincecum, Longoria, Braun, Strasburg, etc etc. ...and you are rewarded by being able to keep them for a long time if you invest accordingly.

In this league it would be great to be able to draft the Lebrons, Kobes and Durants every year, while those who kept Wall or Griffin are rewarded greatly by being able to keep them for 4 years. Then your auction budget would reset every year and you could rebid for Lebron if you wanted. It puts the fun back into it versus having a draft and and not having great players available. Makes for boring drafts.

...and you need a reward for winning. It makes the competition much better. With as little as 3 keepers, it's very easy for the bottom teams to make a comeback in 1 year. So I don't see a problem of disparity.